[gtoric]

Originally Posted by drummer

GTORIC

The right to bear arms which is given in the Constitution is not infringed because states require "concealed permits". The permits only grant the ability to carry a firearm concealed it has nothing to do with any right to own or carry "openly" a firearm.

The right to carry a concealed weapon is infringed or controlled, and the Constitution does not differentiate between the concealed or exposed state of carrying. It merely grants the citizenship the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry on their person) without infringement (restriction). By requiring a permit for concealment, is that not an act of infringement by restricting how we can bear those arms? Isn't this an act simply and succinctly forbidden by the Constitution? It's the phrase,"...shall not be infringed...." with which I am having trouble coming to grips.

I realize that there have been several reasons put forth in favor of issuing conceal-to-carry permits. I previously gave the slightly paranoiac "government can keep track of those who own weapons in order to make it easier to confiscate those same weapons in time of insurrection" reason (National Socialist Germany during the mid-to-late 1930s comes readily to mind here). It has also been stated that this is a revenue-generator for local and State governments; no doubt. Actually, those first two reasons make a good argument for regular gun registration as well. Also, by making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a properly issued permit, this now becomes a controlling tool used by law enforcement to arrest, then by the judicial system to convict otherwise law-abiding citizens of a minor wrongdoing. An unintended consequence of prosecuting this otherwise victimless crime on its own is to clog our already overtaxed court systems with additional burdens and expenses. One other positive point, however; the requirement to participate in a gun safety course as part of obtaining a permit can not be faulted.

These permits are issued to insure that convicted felons and other criminals who choose to carry concealed firearms can be prosecuted in the courts.

In the case of an accused criminal's possession of a concealed weapon during the commission of a crime, a failure to produce a legal conceal permit would certainly serve to reinforce the prosecution and extend the conviction of any confluent crime. Sort of like icing on the cake, or an added insurance policy in order to obtain the conviction. Though I'm still not convinced of the constitutionality of this concealment restriction.

I was under the impression that the right to keep and bear arms was surrendered by convicted felons, who then were not allowed to be in legal possession of or carry any firearms, concealed or open. Additionally, can convicted felons legally be issued "conceal-to-carry" permits since their right to bear arms was rendered void by their conviction? Seems to me that the successful prosecution of a crime would be pretty much assured by the fact that a felon had used a weapon during the commission in the first place. Or, has our liberal criminal law system muddied-up that issue as well? I'm probably way naive in the methods of criminal prosecution and its nuanced conduct.

Making the possession of a concealed weapon without a permit illegal seems to me to be a tool of regulation aimed primarily at controlling the law-abiding citizenry, who by definition need not be regulated in this manner when not committing an infraction. However, when turning to crime, is the lawbreaker's reasoning significantly affected by having or not having a permit to carry? In other words, is having a permit to carry an effective crime deterrent? Laws only act as deterrents to law-abiding citizens. Professional criminals scoff at laws and only consider the consequences when caught. Maybe the conceal laws are not meant to prevent crimes.

How is it determined if an unlawful act was committed by an accused person using a concealed weapon? Isn't a weapon used in that act almost always unconcealed, at least in the commission of the act? How does law enforcement prove that a weapon was ever concealed prior to the act itself? If a perpetrator walks into a bank with his weapon already drawn and unconcealed, what good is a permit to conceal? Conceal-to-carry permits do not make us any safer from law-abiding citizens, because they do not use the concealment factor as an aid to commit crimes, and criminals don't care about permits because it's their mentality that they will not get caught in the first place.

I'm curious, what legally constitutes a concealed weapon? What are the various States' rulings concerning the display of a carried weapon? Can you duct-tape a .22 to your forehead, and not be prosecuted for unlawful possession? Does carrying a pistol in your hand, in open display, violate any laws? A drawn gun seems to me to portend bad things happening in the immediate future. Does the act of drawing a gun without cause in public result in prosecution? I'm guessing that there have been many rulings dictating exactly how a weapon is to be carried/displayed in public. Would these rulings be considered unconstitutional infringements as well? I would guess that since the person is allowed to legally bear that arm up to the point of overt brandishment, establishing laws governing how the weapon is to be controlled are constitutional and prudent on a state-by state basis.

I am all for citizens carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves or others, but I dont want the local crackhead to be able to and if he does I want law enforcement to have laws in place to aide them in removing them from the streets.

Isn't the local crackhead granted constitutional rights to bear arms? As long as he/she is a legal citizen, isn't a convicted felon, and isn't caught in the act of committing a crime that is. Restricting such a person from bearing a weapon before the fact is not possible. I don't like the fact that an unstable, desperate, and most likely under certain conditions, dangerous individual can legally own and carry a firearm, but how can the law constitutionally restrict such an individual? This sounds like an ACLU issue. It would not surprise me to learn that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and has upheld the constitutionality of conceal-to-carry permits. In which case, all of my arguments and conclusions here are just so much hot air.

The supreme court recently struck down Washington DC's ban on handguns and I agree with the decision, but to compare handgun bans to concealed permits isn't fair.

20 years law enforcement veteran

Perhaps comparing banning handguns and requiring permits to carry concealed is not fair, but in the end aren't both controlling measures, therefore aren't both conditions infringements of the Second Amendment? That's all I meant to convey.

What is the purpose of concealing a firearm? Is it to mask the fact that a person is in possession of a weapon? Or is it merely an act of convenience of transportation, as in a purse, a pocket, or on a shoulder holster?

In any event, the act of concealment removes the very powerful psychological advantage of letting the bad guys know that you are in control of the equalizing weapon. As Maj. Caudill so eloquently put it, I'd rather be persuaded by argument than by force. Possessing a sidearm, concealed or not, takes force out of the equation.

Drummer, I respect the special dedication and conviction that it takes to select police work as a profession. I also recognize the constant risk of personal danger that must be confronted once on the job. I have relatives and friends who serve the community as police officers, and I can't imagine the pressures you face daily. I thank God that you and your brothers and sisters in law enforcement are on the job and willing to serve. Law enforcement is not responsible for creating law, only enforcing the laws. I want it to be clear that I am questioning the law makers and the judicial system here, not the police. If we don't get a firm grip on the direction in which the progressive movement is taking this country, we may lose all of our constitutional rights in the blink of an eye, and then not realize how it happened so fast. And if I don't air my concerns, I would be shirking my responsibilities as a citizen of this great country. Don't take these queries and statements in the wrong light. I'm just trying to get people to think about our condition, and the right to bear and keep arms is at the center of our continued existence as a free peoples.

Thank you for your service.